swansont

No, it can’t. The elapsed time depends on their relative speed. This is one reason why you are getting the wrong answer. Assuming the earth is at rest is a horrible approximation.

You didn’t provide evidence of this, and need to, and also show they are maximum under the same conditions. The moon in between the earth and sun moves in one direction, the moon on the far side of the earth is moving in the opposite direction. Because the earth is moving, one is in the same direction of the earth’s orbit, the other is in the opposite direction. This will affect the duration of the eclipses. It’s not simple geometry, as if the earth was stationary.

! Moderator Note You were told to not re-introduce this. As Ghideon notes, your result is wrong; this should lead you to first investigate to find errors in your model. for example, 7.5 minutes is the longest solar eclipse ever calculated. It’s not typical, nor is it a constant. It depends on multiple factors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse A total lunar eclipse can last up to nearly 2 hours, but it is similarly not a constant I’ll leave this open to allow discussion of errors in your model. But any further insistence that your calculation is correct will result in closure, and possibly suspension. One rather obvious issue is that the moon is moving in the opposite direction for each type of eclipse, so this simple geometry argument would seem to be lacking.

One problem is that it’s not universally true. You can see this in the limiting case of m1>>m2 When the orbital separation increases, m2 will get closer to m3 for part of its orbit, increasing the attraction.

I can’t tell if this is an attempt at agreement or an attempt at rebuttal.

! Moderator Note The rules require the information to be posted here If you don’t care enough to explain, don’t expect anyone to care enough to answer

To the titular question: probably not. These are mesons and the issue you raise is about baryons. If the paper doesn’t mention the baryon asymmetry, you shouldn’t assume that this is relevant to that problem. From an older Sean Carroll blog post about a different meson CP violation: The logic seems to be something like this: 1. CP violation has something to do with baryogenesis. 2. This experiment has something to do with CP violation. 3. Therefore, this experiment has something to do with baryogenesis. I’ll leave it to the trained philosophers in the audience to find the logical flaw in that argument. Try substituting “George Washington” and “cherry trees” for “CP violation” and “baryogenesis.” The point is that the conclusion doesn’t hold — not everything about CP violation is necessarily related to baryogenesis. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/06/04/marketing-cp-violation/

Did you miss where I said “a composite system can have p=0 and have kinetic energy” It’s a problem when you indiscriminately mix scalars and vectors It’s also limited to the other variable (mass, in this case) being held constant. So it’s contrived. It’s cherry-picking examples to fit a narrative. A silly narrative, IMO because these terms commute, so it doesn’t matter where the factor of 2 lives.

Write down the Newtonian gravity equations and do the algebra. You probably want to parameterize in terms of the distance between 1 and 2, if you can

That only applies on day 1 They’re contrived; several of those equations are not valid in general (e.g. a composite system can have p=0 and have kinetic energy)

And? Nothing here says KE is 2d. It says it’s quadratic.

2d energy? KE is a scalar. and it’s not 1/2 τr^2 which has the wrong units. And it’s better to write KE as Qv^2, where Q = m/2. Much better.

! Moderator Note Maybe you should start blogging, because this reads like a blog post and not the start of a discussion. The latter being the goal in a discussion forum.

It’s likely Millikan tried both polarities, and pursued the configuration that was giving more interesting results. There had to be the ability to form more than one charge state, and there may be reasons that attaching multiple ions may not work (i.e. a chemical bond would be involved), but works for the electrostatic attraction with electrons

It's the area multiplied by the circumference if you put it in terms of π, as well. 2π^2r^3 = 2πr * πr^2 Nothing actually changes when you put it in terms of tau.

My prior comments have nothing to do with any understanding of physics. I have been relaying the pertinent rules you agreed to follow when you joined the site. As for my understanding of physics, I personally am not befuddled by the location of a factor of 2, as the constants of proportionality and similar terms are IMO the least interesting part of an equation. (I am an experimentalist, though, so this does not extend to setting everything to 1, as I do want to be able to calculate physically meaningful results) Your croissant comment serves to reinforce the notion that this is personal taste, i.e. subjective, so it is an overreach to say one is better than the other. Better for you perhaps, but there's nothing inherently better about it. IOW they are the same. It's a notation difference, i.e. a triviality.

! Moderator Note 1. "more elegant and understandable" is subjective 2. If you are going to ignore the rules then I will go ahead and lock this. Is that the path you wish to take?

! Moderator Note The rules mandate that discussion take place here from rule 2.7: Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum.

That doesn’t tell you the likelihood of it happening.

EM waves (and other classical phenomena) are limited to c, making everything local.

! Moderator Note Your style and clarity don’t seem to have improved from your previous thread about a new “model” for the universe. Don’t re-introduce the topic.

Agree. nothing vs something is a tautology. It’s always true, so there’s no predictive value. something vs something else is some of the tortured logic; Phi gave details. As applied to science, it’s just wrong. Something always happens in any properly designed physics experiment, even if it’s measurement that’s consistent with zero. If nothing happened you wouldn’t be able to distinguish between a null result and broken equipment. So the OP is describing bad science. (which happens, no doubt, but shouldn’t get past cursory self review, much less peer review)

Which will be great for interstellar travelers, but irrelevant for folks consumed by the red giant. Five billion years from now. If there is human (or any) life on the planet at that point.

It applies to any pair of conjugate variables, so in QM it includes energy & time, and angular momentum & angular position as well. These variables don’t commute, so the order you do the operation matters. It’s inherent in QM i.e. it’s in the math. These variables are fourier transforms of each other. The observer effect is a distinct phenomenon edit: more detail here - https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/12/ask-ethan-where-does-quantum-uncertainty-come-from/?sh=60c0a134794e

Yes, because I’m not making an argument. I’m pointing out that your claim is wrong.