swansont

I wasn’t arguing against this, so your disagreement is misplaced. I said that the people advocating conspiracy didn’t get there with reason and logic. It made it a lot harder for him to spread lies. If it changed nothing, why did he (and other people) complain?

No, I want the GR equation, so you can’t complain it’s an approximation Yes. And if the terms you ignore are smaller than your precision, it doesn’t affect the answer. So ignoring them doesn’t change your answer. Meaning the Pound-Rebka result is 2.5 x 10^-15 if you use a full-blown GR calculation or just the leading term of the expansion, because the omitted terms are smaller than 10^-16. The bottom line is that time dilation happens at different heights for constant g.

Having two opposite conventions for the direction of current flow is a problem. Standardization seems to be what you are describing. Are you going to address the other points/questions?

Logic and critical thinking didn't get them to their position. Logic and critical thinking won't get them out of it.

Well, we get them, but since they are subject to the rules about providing evidence, it tends to weed them out. But it also means we are not censoring the content, per se, it's that we are enforcing the rules about evidence. Conspiracy theories (as described here) pretty much always lack evidence. And if you fail to follow the rules, you eventually get tossed out.

Another thought: Let's say your risk of getting in an accident is X. Are people going to be willing to accept a risk of X with an autonomous car? I suspect not, because most people think they are above average drivers (Dunning-Kruger or because they're from Lake Wobegone) and also horrible at assessing risk, so they will want something much smaller than X.

There is a large component that is dependent on the law rather than technology. People sue each other for damages. Who is the target of the lawsuit when an autonomous vehicle kills someone? Who is legally going to be at fault? Currently it's the driver (or one of the drivers), AFAIK, unless you can find fault with the vehicle itself. If the entity at fault is going to be the manufacturer, they are going to have to be satisfied that their liability is limited. This puts them more at risk than they currently are, for the ~6 million accidents per year is the US (and a corresponding number in other countries) It's not just the ~35,000 deaths (again, a US statistic) that put them at risk, though deaths would likely be be the larger financial risk per incident. I suspect this will eventually put onto the vehicle owner's insurance, but people and insurance companies will have to be comfortable with this.

But it's not all you stated. This is a sin of omission.

Open debate has to happen with both sides complying with the rules of debate. i.e. evidence is required, not just assertion. Logical fallacies and arguments of distraction cannot be permitted. The large overlap with the rules of this forum is not accidental. And again, unless the government is involved, this isn't an issue of free speech. You are free to stand shout your conspiracy theories. But no other person or entity is obligated to provide you with a soapbox, or megaphone, or a place to stand, which is what happens with this alleged "censorship"

Yes. The point is that there are a number of ways to do this, and a number of paths to arrive at an hypothesis. You describe only one path. Your list has "form hypothesis" at step 1, and "do experiment" at step 5. The implication is we do these steps in order. If you don't have to, then describing it as a single method is erroneous. Citaton needed. Or, in context of this discussion: provide evidence to back up your assertion. Yes, and you have done nothing to explain how we can move in a circle about the sun without an attractive centripetal force. This isn't an issue of a model of an atom or nucleus, it's simple Newtonian physics. You may substitute a heavy object on a rope, swung in a circle, if you wish. The circular motion is the focus here.

Rights are an issue between people and government. Youtube is not an agent of the government (and neither is this site) so a choice to not permit conspiracy discussions has nothing to do with rights. One of the problems with this is the notion that opinions matter when these are questions of fact. Opinions are personal. Facts are not; establishing facts require evidence, which is usually the first thing left behind when promoting conspiracy.

So what? Physics idealizes all the time. Or have you never taken a physics class? There are no frictionless surfaces and there is always air resistance, in reality. But they don't show up in many problems. Constant g is a given in the problem. That’s all that matters. Earlier you said it wouldn’t (“time dilation would be constant in a field of "constant gravitational acceleration" and therefore would not refract light. If gravitational forces still existed in such a field then equivalence would be broken”). Which is the correct claim? Let’s try this: What is the GR expression for gravitational potential in a uniform gravitational field? No, you’re hung up on it being an approximation, as if it matters. I pointed out you use non-relativistic equations. Your problem is set near a black hole, which suggests you need to use relativistic equations. Nothing after that is valid (these are your rules). That’s my refutation.

What’s the longest astronauts have been in space without resupply? 300 days + 400-500 days or more of travel time. Launch cost of Perseverance was about $200k per kg of payload. What’s the launch cost of a crewed mission going to be? You need to get them back off the planet and home, which is not a cost associated with a robotic mission.

The moon landings cost us $260 billion in todays dollars. The Perseverance mission is projected to cost slightly more than 1% of that ($2.7 billion) https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-perseverance Mars would be more expensive, of course. So it’s likely your claim of 50x more accomplishments leaves you on the short end. Ignoring the part about “we haven’t shown how to do it yet” (no actual rocket, no demonstration of keeping people alive for that long under those conditions, etc)

Fun fact: I have never used a p-value. It’s not really physics terminology; I don’t think I’ve run across it in any physics papers. (seems to be a life sciences thing) We tend to use use standard deviations, and cite them as such. The number of them considered significant depends on the area of physics. Sometime we break it down is a straight percentage; for some experiments 10% agreement is OK, 1% is better. A lot of this depends on your statistics and how noisy your data are, and how well you can determine the contributions of that noise. Bottom line: there is no “one size fits all” approach.

Not specious, IMO. We haven't sent crewed craft places because we either can't or won't. Robotic craft can survive a much wider range of environments as opposed to humans. Even if you aren't counting on the humans to return to earth, they still need to survive to their destination to do the mission. Missions with crewed craft are much more expensive, owing to the need to protect the fragile crew. How do you justify the added cost and complexity, while accounting for the reality of finite budgets?

I would add that the OP is an example of the violation of scientific methods, which decry anecdotal data. There is an example of one method given, but proper science calls for a comprehensive look at methods, lest we have biased results. I'm sure there are numerous examples of someone coming up with an hypothesis and then (possibly someone else) devising an experiment to test it; for that narrow example one might use Einstein's theory of relativity. If you only look for examples that support this notion you won't get accurate results. Because there are also a number of examples of someone puttering away in a lab, or gazing out into space, and noticing something. They gather the data and look for the pattern and only then do they formulate an hypothesis. Pretty much all of classical astronomy has followed that playbook. Early E&M was like this - the equations came later. A lot of early chemistry was just finding a new substance (e.g. coal tar) and sciencing the heck out of it to see what happened. And then you have the method of using established science models and going to look for phenomena that it predicts (or perhaps the combination of models), even if the originator of the model had no thought on that particular detail. The bottom line is that there is more than one path (method) to doing science.

And yet we orbit the sun. Your article is from 1945, so the use of the present tense is not well-founded. And “government-owned scientists” is quite a phrase. I see where the article mentions Dalton, but not Du Fay.

! Moderator Note Please don’t hijack other discussions to talk about your own ideas.

Then show the GR calculation and point out the disagreement. Einstein’s elevator is an example of the equivalence principle, part of GR. It says light bends in an elevator accelerating at 1g, whether due to an external force or due to gravity. You deny this will occur. Incorrect. You are assuming the field is due to a body where the field varies. That’s an additional constraint the you have added. The gradient isn’t zero for constant g. Why do you think that it would be? Work it the other way. If the field is constant (g), then integrate over a distance (h) to find the potential. It will be gh. The potential energy will be mgh. These equations should look familiar.

This is from the recent book by Bill Gates. It suggests where the tall tent-poles can be found.

! Moderator Note You have at least one thread on this topic.

There is no single scientific method. Sometimes the observation/experiment comes before the hypothesis. Sometimes it’s after. Sometimes you can do an independent experiment. Sometimes you can’t. That would be a topic for discussion in speculations

Yes, it is. Do the math. Of course it does. But you previously said that it required a change in g. You probably shouldn’t tell me what I agree to. I see you used Newtonian physics. Why is that permitted in your treatment? You’re complaining that it gives inexact results. At what level of precision is Pound-Rebka inexact? Yes, I already pointed this out. “quickly” is quantifiable. The point is, the result obtained is the same as if you did a full GR treatment. It gives the same answer, because if you expand the GR equation in powers of r, they used the first term, as the others are small and can be ignored. (Just like 1/2 mv^2 can be extracted from the relativistic KE equation) I pointed to one already. I don’t see the point, other than as a distraction from the example I gave. g=0, so there is no gravitational acceleration, as I mentioned. So, no comment on Einstein’s elevator?

Parents bought a Time-Life book series on science, which had a lot of neat stuff in it, and we went to the natural history museum (the State Museum) in Albany NY and the science museum in Schenectady. Also nature programs; I remember a program on Louis and Mary Leakey and Olduvai Gorge that was fascinating to me. Started my interest in paleontology. The push toward physics was mostly my next door neighbors; the father was an electrical engineer, and his son (~5 years older than me) loved to tinker and experiment, and would include me.