swansont

To paraphrase Ian Malcolm, scientists can be so preoccupied with whether or not they can, they don’t stop to think if they should. It’s why certain independent permissions (ethics) are needed for some experiments. Science gave us nuclear weapons but science isn’t what tells us not to use them.

! Moderator Note You were working on establishing the premise of this little exercise, which you haven’t done. As I suggested earlier, you would/could be making the same mistake all over again. Regardless, you haven’t made any connection between the article and h changing other than wishful thinking, and that’s woefully insufficient

! Moderator Note We have requirements in speculations, demanding a certain level of rigor. We also require discussions stay on topic, and this thread was about G, not h If you have more than conjecture(i.e. more than what you have presented here), open up a new thread

Conscious Energy has been banned as a sockpuppet of FreeWill

Not sure why, but my brain completely skipped over that bit when I was reading.

Nobody has claimed this to be true.

It's how they are defined. If you had point with a finite length, you can make a point that's half the size. If you have endpoints a fine distance apart, you can choose a point between them. Keep doing so. The limiting case is that points have zero length. You aren't counting points when you do this.

Why not? How much information is in the natural numbers? You need to rigorously quantify these things, rather than assert them. There are lots of infinities in physics, but they are described by math How many solutions are there for the principle quantum number for the Hydrogen atom (Schrödinger or Bohr solution; pick whichever one you want)

I would think loss of arctic ice would be a significant contribution, since the water reflects less well than the ice. And, of course, light not reflected is being absorbed, contributing to heating.

But that doesn't limit the math. You seem to be insisting that it does. Your thread title is all about math and nothing about physical things.

Some kind of epoxy or resin might achieve this. Soft (possibly liquid) until it’s cured. Probably ends up harder than sealing wax

Numbers don’t physically exist. But these aren’t the same thing. A volume of spacetime is not the same as the points inside it.

! Moderator Note Is a digital signature sticky? Can you prepare a small amount for obtaining a relief pattern to yield a negative? No? Then this is off-topic.

It's settled math. You can pick any two points and always find a point in between them. But not an infinite amount of time. Math is a labor-saving device. Otherwise this doesn't seem to be pertinent. Again, not pertinent to the OP.

What does this have to do with anything? You mentioned points in space, not time. I specified a line segment in space, and noted that there are an infinite number of points in it. No mention of time at all. None. Space is not impacted by gravity. The curvature of space is gravity. A little more specifically, mass (really, energy-momentum) causes space to curve, which we perceive as gravity. Yes. Because if the photon had mass then it wouldn't behave the way it does. Note that this is physics and not philosophy, and seems to be OT for this thread. There have been other discussions about this, and you are free to start a new one (in an appropriate subforum) if you actually want to discuss the physics of it.

I'd be worried about the craft tipping over in the high winds you'd be seeking out. I would expect that would limit the size of the impeller you could safely deploy. Also the cost/benefit ratio of something that you'd be deploying perhaps a dozen trips a year vs just harnessing the normally-encountered winds on a fixed platform.

It's called sealing wax. Available in craft stores and on the web. I think some of the bottling material is not actually wax, or there are additives to it.

! Moderator Note Which can and will be ignored on this, a science discussion site, as a response to any inquiry having to do with mainstream topics.

No, the line is not time. You said space, and I meant space. There are an infinite number of points in any volume of space. You previously said points, not planck lengths. A point has no length. Don’t change the argument

You have an infinite number of points in any finite, one-dimensional line segment. So this is incorrect. Infinities are useful in analysis We absolutely count finite things.

Sorry, I missed the r=1 detail…but you are assuming a one-dimensional system, which is a special case. The speed distribution arises from having a 3-D system. Collisions don’t have to be head-on. Both particles will be moving after the collision, except for the head-on case.

No. If one particle is at rest, both particles will be moving after the collision.

You haven’t shown that this is true. Not even close.

Noted. But you are insisting that you have to change G, because of this hand-wavy argument, rather than trying to find out the correct transform.

You seem to be assuming that the values will have to agree with each other, when we know that instead, such values are relative and can only be compared by transforming from one reference frame into the other. I don't know off the top of my head what value a distant observer would calculate for g in a GR context. What I do know is if this were a situation where relative motion were in play, they would not get the same answer for an acceleration, because that's not how accelerations transform, just like they would not get the same answer for kinetic energy of some object in the other frame, and whose value is not found by a simple multiplication by gamma. Relative values will be relative, not equal, in different frames of reference. Are you arguing that g is an invariant quantity? because that's what you seem to be arguing.