swansont

How would you test this?

Ah, of course. (I took that as square mile, not mile squared. Stupid brain)

No, there’s no reason to think this is possible with known physics.

Can you show a calculation showing how much energy would be a available?

! Moderator Note Split; please don’t hijack discussions to bring up your own theory

! Moderator Note If you have a scientific model, go ahead

Said to be? Nonsense. What if the area I take is 0.01 miles wide by 100 miles long - does it still have 8 inches of curvature? Rules say you post the info for discussion, as nobody is required to watch a video in order to participate

IDNeon has been banned because, good grief, they wouldn’t leave it alone. Repeated personal attacks, thread hijacking and soapboxing. Over and over again, without much science to dilute the crap.

! Moderator Note Reposting a trashed thread? No I don’t think so.

! Moderator Note Since you can’t or won’t support your claims, you can’t challenge this. In any event, refusal to support claims isn’t how we do things here.

It would mean something if you explained why, instead of just repeating it.

I think Alcoa probably used proper units. Her’s another source. https://agmetalminer.com/2015/11/24/power-costs-the-production-primary-aluminum/ 15 kwh per kg, or 15,000 kwh per ton That gets you to 25.5 TWh for 1.7 million tons

You could only determine this by interacting with the photon, which you don’t, as the scenario is described.

If you mean TW-year, then it’s 223380 TWh (8760 hours per year) What’s your source? They probably got the units correct. I think this refers to 2000 https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2003/data/papers/SS03_Panel1_Paper02.pdf 57.6 TWh Your number is a tad high.

TW and GW are units of power, not energy. TW per year is not a meaningful unit. Do you have a citation for your number?

I agree with MigL. It’s not something that has an opposite, as such. You’re either in one eigenstate, or in a superposition of them. (or in a situation where the concept doesn’t apply)

! Moderator Note Which is irrelevant to the discussion, so there can be no follow-up in this thread

An observer will see the beams separate at 2c. You can’t analyze this from the perspective of either light beam, since that does not represent a valid inertial frame if reference If these were objects traveling at an attainable speed (i.e. less than c), then you can do this with the velocity addition formula. Let’s say they move at u and v relative to the central frame (of the person tossing the objects). They will see the total distance between them increase at (u+v) (using scalar speeds) Each object will see the other recede at (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel2.html#c2

! Moderator Note From Rule 2.5: Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand.

! Moderator Note What we discuss here in posts like this are facts (and "I saw on youtube" is, at best, a dubious source) and not your beliefs. This is something where you could go research and gather facts and see if this is true, and not have to rely on belief. Your discussion should have been framed the same way. If you can do that, you can re-introduce the topic

! Moderator Note That has little to do with the question that was asked, and the rest of your post has even less. Please try to stay on-topic when you post.

If you hadn't truncated my post you would see that I said there are interactions that allow this. Reflection isn't one of them.

Photons don't split*, and they can't be half absorbed. You either have the photon or you don't. *You can create two photons from one in certain interactions, but these are not being described here. "This question has been answered by modeling photon emission by an atom in terms of classical radiation theory" You keep citing works that are using classical theory, and yet you and they use the term "photon" which is not classical.

What is suspect about someone on a science discussion site wanting to discuss science? Why is it suspect that I don't want to slog through a paper that is obviously wrong, seeing as you stated several conclusions that are in disagreement with GR? Even if I were inclined to find your mistakes, you have fought me at every turn when I have given criticism. What theory does it contradict? More importantly, how does it contradict that theory? They are both practical impossibilities. As is Newton's sphere. You provided a reference which is consistent with mgh being GR. Do you now disagree with your own reference? I have asked you to do this, and you have thus far declined. And I expect you will decline this invitation as well. How much error is introduced in the Pound-Rebka experiment by assuming a constant g? Convince me that it matters, with some real justification, rather than a hand-wave. And yes, you can use it for generalizations, as long as you aren't violating the assumptions you made in the approximation.

The short answer is that momentum is conserved. In the rocket frame, the exhaust has momentum in one direction, so the rocket recoils in the other. This works for any frame where the exhaust has a velocity opposite of the rocket’s In any other frame, the exhaust has less momentum than an equal amount of mass on the rocket, since it’s moving slower, so the rocket has to have gained momentum.