swansont

“Applying scattering theory and classical electrodynamics is the most reliable way to solve this problem.” I don’t see how this gives a QM result

! Moderator Note This is a discussion site, not a blog. What is it you wish to discuss?

Detecting by who or what is a detail that gives you information. Those are (largely) theory papers. The experimental results in the first one give summaries of some experiments, but the writing in the second one suggests the authors did not do any experiments. From my perspective there's a bit of a gap between a quoted observation and the conclusion they draw in most of their soliton section, which is in support of their own model, and not to be taken as a generally-accepted model of the photon.

Prof Reza Sanaye has been banned for continuing to hijack threads and argue in bad faith

(And now there’s more data on what is a civility rules violation and what is not)

I don’t think it was your post. I suspect it was the “crazy eyes” comment. Not the “derail” comment, because he did, in fact, derail the other thread

It would necessarily work exactly the same way. No, this is backwards. Experiments only give you 1 result. It’s whether the result is consistent with one theory or the other. Move clocks at some relative speed and/or at different gravitational potentials and they will disagree. You only have one result to compare with theory. Newtonian physics does not predict this, but relativity does. Newton is not a relativistic theory You don’t do this. You compare the theories with the experiment. Appeal to conspiracy isn’t a valid (or allowable) argument.

Entanglement is a quantum effect, but not all quantum effects are entanglement

I agree space is big and not a continuum of habitable or useful bodies is one part. And I agree the age of the universe is another. I think we discussed aspects of this before - without a couple of generations of stars you don’t get heavy elements, so even if life arose early on, it couldn’t exploit its environment in a way that would lead to industrialization and space. And then you have to have intelligent life arise at the right time. If there had been early intelligent life but no abundant, accessible coal or oil around, odds are against them getting into space.

Except 470 MeV is about 1/2mc^2 for a proton, and that’s what you get if you think that KE=1/2mv^2 is valid, and you apply the limiting speed of c. (refer also to the other remarks suggesting relativity is wrong). So I don’t think it was a slip of the pen.

You have to reports a post if you want to bring it to the attention of the moderators. Attacking what someone writes is not against the rules. Attacking them personally is. 1/2 mc^2 is not a limit from any valid physics Where is the link to an experiment that I had asked for?

You know that I have not read the paper, so it is an ill-advised leap to say I agree to anything about it. It would vary with position, because the gravitational potential varies with position. No, there is no disagreement. You can’t physically realize an actually constant g. My position is that this doesn’t matter, at all, because physics solutions to idealized conditions are legion. Working with models doesn’t require physical realization, just no out-and-out violation of the relevant laws of physics.

Freezing point depression is real (as is boiling point elevation) but I, too, would like to know how this would keep water from expanding on freezing. Not sure why "physics" is in quotes, but physics indeed says density is mass/volume. No substitution necessary, since weight is not part of the definition. And, of course, you need to specify the ambient conditions because volume can change with temperature. Which is why you will often see a remark that the density of a solid is measured at STP, or a liquid's is given at the melting point, or some other temperature. Density doesn't have any direct connection with inertia; mass is defined in those terms, but that doesn't come into play in just determining the value of mass. You're tilting at windmills of your own making.

! Moderator Note You are directed to back this claim up with citations and/or links. Absent that this is soapboxing in addition to hijacking. ! Moderator Note Quite agree. It has been split

GPS satellites are not in stationary orbit. Their altitude is ~ 20,000km and they make two orbits a day. That would blow up the transmitter doing the spoofing, but I doubt that it's particularly close to Vladimir.

I can find the mass of something using a balance, and volume doesn't enter into the process. If it's more dense than water, I can find the volume by how much water it displaces, which doesn't directly depend on the mass. The ratio of those two values gives me the density, because density is define as that ratio. If by this you mean you need to have a volume as a standard, yes, that's true. It's true of all measurement; it's not like volume is unique in this way.

I think pretty much everything is wrong in what you said in that post.

No, but that's not necessary. Physics says so, and that is sufficient. It's supposed to be taken as understood, at least by people who understand the physics involved.

! Moderator Note It seems to be too much to ask that you stay on-topic (in this case, there is no discussion of space in the OP, simply a matter of a bicycle). So: trashcan it is!

It's not anywhere close to the same thing. One makes sense mathematically, and the other does not.

It stays stretched. To change would violate conservation of energy.

So are frictionless surfaces and scenarios that lack air resistance, and Newton spheres, which you have invoked more than once, but that doesn't stop us from doing a gedanken experiment. The physics still works. Ah, be careful. Time dilation may be defined this way under a particular set of assumptions such as having a spherical body of mass m, but one can't apply that in a situation where the assumptions don't apply. A. YOU provided the GR equation to me, in the Relativistic Gravitational Potential and its Relation to Mass-Energy link. Don't get pissy because you don't like the answer. If you think my math is bad, you go ahead and integrate the equation for constant acceleration. Do you get a different answer? (if so, then we can discuss bad math) B. You have no idea what my motivations are. It is a mistake to think that you do.

! Moderator Note From our “guidelines for posting in speculations” You must also know the terminology. You can't effectively communicate if you are using different definitions than everyone else IOW, this will not fly

If a = d(phi)/dr, we can integrate for a constant a and see that the change in potential is simply ar, or, as I wrote earlier, gh. So it seems my equation is a GR equation after all. That would seem to remove your objection to the fact that time dilation will happen in a region of constant g

! Moderator Note Threads merged; one per topic please. Also note that this is a discussion site and not your blog It’s not a physical process. It’s an issue of which model you use, quantum mechanics or classical electrodynamics. One should use the one best-suited to the situation being investigated