swansont

Inflation and expansion are not the same thing. Inflation is an accelerated expansion (i.e. it's a particular form of expansion) Having no central point is associated with expansion in general, not just with inflation. No, not so much. As above, changing scales is a feature of expansion, not just inflation. A meter isn't worth any less owing to expansion. Remember that expansion is only apparent where systems are not gravitationally bound to each other.

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged

6 quarks (up, down, strange, charm, top, bottom) have been identified and confirmed, but none of them were discovered at the LHC. You haven’t done your homework. Your errors are legion, and I doubt anyone is going to rebut all of them

I don’t understand the question. It’s the column number. The actinides and lanthanides require an addition dimension, as it were, because you are now filling an additional shell. Or a much wider table, since you’d need 14 more columns, that would apply to only 2 rows. What is their “correct” position?

! Moderator Note Not if they are part of your argument. Only as reference material, or to support the details of your claim. People shouldn’t have to click on a link to participate.

What is that first distance? How is it chosen?

Can you link to where you showed the calculation for the synchrotron emission wavelength or frequency?

Updates always remove a feature that you liked. It's the nature of software updates, because in some software engineer's mind, different is needed to justify the update, and so different is considered better. In the user reality, different is automatically worse, because there is a new learning curve involved, and losses of function.

To be fair, we can move in any spatial direction (in principle) but only forward in time. For inertial motion our velocity through spacetime is fixed; the faster we move spatially, the slower we move in time such that our "four-velocity" remains invariant at c. (though we never notice, because for inertial motion we are always at rest and time moves normally for us. It's seen in the measurement by others, who are in a different frame of reference)

Relativity is a well-tested theory of physics, which describes these "restraints" It's the way that nature behaves. These "theories" of other dimensions are not. They are conjecture. Things that can't be modeled or tested are outside of science.

I have just one which has been in use for at least 5 years - I don't recall how long. A light that's on pretty much all the time I'm home and awake. Whenever it goes I will not consider it to be a premature death. (I think I've replaced one CFL bulb in the last 3-4 years. That's it for the modern ones.)

In laminar flow the different layers move at different speeds, which is decidedly not the case with light. Whether the light is focused depends on the optical conditions; it's not an inherent behavior of the light.

! Moderator Note This violates rule 2.3 concerning discussion of hazardous substances, in this case explosives

My point was that if we have expiring doses then there is no current shortage. And there likely will be no shortage any time soon, because in the early stages of the vax effort one constraint was manufacturing capacity, which was still ramping up. So there should be no problem. The US hit a goal of 100 million doses in Biden's first 100 days, and that was back-heavy, because the delivery in Jan/Feb was lower - the allocation for Pfizer was ~ 2 million doses a week. That quickly ramped up to 5 million per week by the end of March. Anyone in that first cohort needing a second dose would only take 40% of that capacity, leaving millions of doses for the currently unvaccinated. (Pretty sure there is a similar trend for the other options)

Which countries are implementing a vaccination-only strategy? And what is the cost of treatment vs vaccine? The US is throwing out expiring doses, which indicates supply exceeds demand. here's what's happening all across the United States: Millions of vaccine doses at risk of spoiling are sitting on freezer shelves, with no easy way to get them to countries desperately waiting for shots. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/08/10/1025463260/alabama-just-tossed-65-000-vaccines-turns-out-its-not-easy-to-donate-unused-dose

! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your youtube channel is against the rules.

! Moderator Note When a thread is closed for a lack of rigor, it is not an invitation to open a new thread on a similar topic which is equally lacking in rigor.

! Moderator Note If you don’t offer a conjecture that’s supported with some amount of rigor (model, prediction, or evidence) then this does not rise to the level required in speculations. We don’t have a WAG forum. You are freeto ask questions and learn science, but this isn’t how we do things

! Moderator Note OK, then. Closed

Nothing is moving faster than c

Provide evidence of this claim. Not assertion. Evidence.

We have experimental evidence that GR is correct and this is wrong. Why are you wasting time with a model that’s contradicted by experimental evidence? The Pound-Rebka experiment.

I didn’t say it was a watch. But the oscillators used in GPS are adjusted to run slower (on the ground) so that the relativistic effects in orbit make them have the same frequency as a ground-based clock. Bottom of what? Ascent of what? You are saying things without giving context. I don’t see how this means anything. We’re talking about atoms. Fine structure and hyperfine structure refers to energy level splitting. There is no such thing as ultra-thin structure.

There’s no reason to think this is true, and probably no evidence you can provide. How would the knee know the nature of the mass providing this weight?

Strictly speaking, we know the Bohr model to be wrong, but the energy solutions for hydrogen-like systems is correct. There is no quantum theory of gravity This is the speculation? Why do clocks that don't rely on photons (e.g. quartz oscillators) feel the same effects? non-medzhu? What is that? Spin-orbit is the fine structure. The clock transition is in the hyperfine structure. e.g. in hydrogen, it's the fine structure is splitting of the excited P state. The hyperfine structure is seen in the ground state http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hydfin.html The spin-orbit interaction is not involved in the atomic clock operation. My objections aside, I see no analysis of the actual amount of frequency shift you would expect. You have only hand-waved the answer. It needs to be quantified. There are none because the Bohr model is wrong. But if you mean by transitions between levels where the principle quantum number (n) changes, they do exist. They are called optical clocks, because these transitions are often in the visible part of the spectrum. And they have measured frequency shifts perfectly consistent with general relativity. https://www.nist.gov/publications/relativity-and-optical-clocks (this is from > 10 years ago) The top of what? You mean the redshift that you have yet to calculate for the conjecture you are championing? Why is there no calculation? How do you get from your formulas to 4gh/c^2? The 21 cm transition in H is the hyperfine transition I mentioned before, not the fine-structure splitting.