swansont

Include a “d” term for both and it may make more sense. It will cancel, of course. The change in the path difference is entirely from the upper path. You could do this at 1 Hz and the path difference would be the same, wouldn’t it? I don’t see how the speed of the mirror ties in with the data you’ve presented.

When are you going to start using them right?

I wasn’t aware that Nature (or any science journals) were behind this. Trump was de-platformed for documented reasons. If he didn’t lie incessantly, his accounts might still be active.

If that’s your best example, you’ve got nothing. It’s a report about others, not Nature taking a position. More rigor is needed on your part for your accusations Stories don’t always merit equal weight on both sides. If there’s a story on the earth being an oblate sphere, equal weight need not be given to flat-earthers. “both sides” is not a justification in and of itself.

They didn’t. They supported one candidate over another, and explained why, and their justification was based on who supported science and who didn’t. But since rejection of science is basically the position of the GOP, it would be reasonable to do that, IMO. How, exactly, does this affect their objectivity?

Well, yes, but the rest of the information is needed to determine what’s going on. The mass of any other particles, photon energy, direction of emission, etc. You can’t solve for anything without this.

It doesn’t. Your analysis is of an unphysical situation (no conservation of momentum) and your KE equation is wrong, therefore no valid conclusion can be drawn from it.

Show your calculation, please

This is unphysical. Momentum is a conserved quantity, which means that you can’t assume all the energy is converted from mass into KE of one particle. That can’t happen. In atomic bombs, you would have multiple massive parts and radiation carrying away energy. If it’s isotropic, momentum is zero, so momentum is conserved. But this is not what you are describing. No, it’s unphysical with few details What posseses this 1 kg’s worth of energy that “went away”? Energy doesn’t go away. It is conserved. Energy is a property, not a substance. (also, don’t introduce new examples. Stick with one until you acknowledge it’s wrong and you correct it)

Energy doesn’t push things. What is happening that results in this motion, and conserves both energy and momentum?

! Moderator Note Discussion peripheral to Hawking radiation and Black holes should take place in a different thread.

33.75% - is this per day, per year? A number like this suggests your calculation is meaningless. Given how long the LHC has run, I’d say the fact that we weren’t eaten by a black hole is a substantial blow to your conjecture.

Raw data are usually not published. What is presented is data after analysis. Theories are often published separately; much of the theory may have been developed by others.

! Moderator Note Our rules require that the discussion take place here. People should be able to participate without clicking any links

robbin66 has been banned as a sockpuppet of bearnard44 and bear33

You can’t publish the same thing, but one can build on an idea and reference the paper, which might raise its profile.

John2020 has been banned as a sockpuppet of Ioannis

You get training on this if you are in a position where you might inadvertently leak. The sensible management here will likely involve in revocation of clearances, and quite possibly discharged/fired, if they catch the perpetrators

! Moderator Note Learn the physics and engineering principles involved. The WAG approach is not what we do here.

They aren’t. They pretend to be, on one or two issues, in order to pander to their base.

The hubris of claiming that established physics is wrong, but you - and pretty much only you - understand the “truth” is quite something. ! Moderator Note This is not an eccentric mass scenario. You had a thread on eccentric mass and it was closed. We aren’t discussing it again. Despite your confidence, you don’t actually understand the basics of mechanics. Physics is not wrong. You are. As you are here to preach and not learn, this is closed. Don’t bring up this or related topics again.

Or they aren’t actually moving. It’s an illusion.

I’m not confused about this. You do not understand physics. You should not be telling other people anything of this sort; you have no basis for that judgement. “A complete cycle” is irrelevant, as I have explained and you have ignored several times. I’ve given examples. The point that we’ve made that the table and ring are not flat means it’s not strictly a vertical force that they exert on each other. We call the normal forces because that’s a sufficient description if we were talking about a rigid object sliding on the surface, but this is a more complex system. You’re getting ahead of yourself. Since you won’t even acknowledge that there is an explanation for motion at all, getting into why there is rotation is quite worthless at this point. I have not addressed rotation at all. I’m not sure you understand why a person can jump in the air, so (again) what’s the point in discussing something that you have shown you can’t possibly understand at this point? You have to get rid of your misconceptions before this would be possible. And, frankly, if all you’re going to do is repeat the same errors without addressing criticisms, that violates the rules on soapboxing.

And yet people can jump rope - an analogous cyclical system, so clearly you are wrong. You are arguing that if you go up and then back down you can never jump up, and this is clearly bollocks. You hit the gas pedal on a car and later the brakes. Over time, the force totals to zero, so you never moved. A conclusion one could draw from your erroneous thinking, and also clearly bollocks. That you don’t see it is the problem. Or one of the major ones. A curious stance, since you’re arguing that there is no explanation (within accepted physics) for its motion. As I (and exchemist, I think) have stated, the fact that the ring and table aren’t flat give lateral forces. The ring also has the windings on part of it, so its deviation from flatness is more pronounced. This isn’t an issue when the motion is small, but as it gets more pronounced the normal force decreases for part of the cycle, reducing friction. So the vertical motion is very important. Well, no. Gravity certainly plays a part in the analysis.

Except it does. Rigid bodies and deformable bodies have different limitations. You are applying a limitation of rigid bodies to deformable ones, and that’s flat-out wrong