swansont

“pollution from electricity” and “pollution from electric motors (or vehicles)” are not exactly the same thing. Motors and engines suffer from friction, which release pollutants, as do braking systems.

And? This seems to be an argument against your thesis. Further, running vs walking or jumping vs standing are more an issue of power, rather than force.

Then I’m guessing there’s not a rigorous mapping between them, so “energy not used/wasted on other things, so it’s available to do work” probably suffices

In order to do a calculation there are variables you need to hold constant. Otherwise you'll never have enough information to solve a problem — too many variables. The end states are equilibrium. Sometimes the path you take to get there matters. Other times it doesn't matter. Which free energy? Gibbs or Helmholtz? (again, it's a matter of which variables are held constant, and which change value)

I don't think smokestacks are "way up in the air" in terms of most environmental impact, especially global warming. They are up in terms of local impact. Also note that smokestacks generally deal with different kinds of pollutants than internal combustion engines. Gasoline is a liquid and coal, for example, is a solid. You get more particulates from the latter. (and, interestingly, particulates are apparently higher from EVs than IC engines) Smokestacks seem to be a way of polluting the air, water and land of the the people downwind of you, rather than the local folk.

A clock at the center of the earth will run at a different rate than one at the surface (and we have to account for elevation differences). And since all real clocks are going to be at/near the surface, that's the situation we usually look at.

No, I'm not going to watch videos without a decent summary of them, as required by the rules... ...and double so for obvious crackpottery.

An earthbound clock is not in an inertial frame, though there are many situations where one can treat it as inertial. But there are others where this will get you into trouble. You have to be careful, and know when the "inertial" assumption is valid. e.g. in the Hafele-Keating experiment, none of the clocks are in inertial frames, which is why the kinetic effects are different for the eastbound vs westbound clocks, relative to the earthbound clocks.

These are not equivalent motions, so this comparison is not particularly useful

On the contrary, what you posted is perfectly consistent with "no physicist in their right mind would expect the current SM to be the final word on the matter of particle physics. However, when such a more fundamental model is found, this still will not mean that SM is abandoned; after all, we know it works extremely well within the energy levels we can currently probe." Much like Newtonian works just fine at low speeds and one need not invoke Einstein's theory of relativity, and at macroscopic scales QM need not be invoked. One could just as easily say the lay of the land ca 1900, was no physicist in their right mind would expect Newtonian physics to be the final word on the matter of mechanics. However, when such a more fundamental model is found, this still will not mean that Newtonian physics is abandoned; after all, we know it works extremely well within the energy levels we can currently probe. And here it is more than 100 years later, and we see this is true: we still use Newtonian physics. We know that there's more to it at the scale of the small and fast.

This is the scenario that launched this part of the discussion: IOW, nothing is in motion in this situation.

In GR being stationary in a gravitational field is an accelerated frame. Your speed is zero but you are accelerating at g

You can have one without the other; there's no inherent connection.

w, u and v are only valid for frame S. You have to use the relativistic velocity addition formula for other frames. i.e. If you were in S' and S'' was moving at 0.6c in one direction relative to S', and S moving in the other at 0.6c, your formula would have S'' moving at 1.2c relative to S, because you naively used a linear addition of velocities

Counterpoint: the point of reading and discussing books is to learn things, so presenting the option to not read the book is like offering the option to not do math, or history, or whatever. Maybe students aren’t the best to judge the value of the curriculum What statements?

To a certain extent, sure. Some of us end up with jobs like building atomic clocks.

! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your youtube channel isn’t permitted. The discussion needs to take place here

Synchronize? No, because that implies frequency and phase are the same. You can set them to the same value, as a one-off, by accounting for light-travel-time delays. (and we also do this in thought experiments all the time) Make the readout agree? Yes, we do it with GPS. Since the satellite clocks run faster than the ground clocks, the oscillators on the satellite clocks is set to be at a lower frequency. After a time T on the ground the satellite clock will also display T, even though the time passed on the satellite is > T. e.g if the net time dilation were a factor of 2, you set the satellite clock oscillator to 5 MHz, while the ground clock is at 10 MHz

Prof Reza Sanaye has been suspended for repeated thread hijacking and not arguing in good faith

Discussing science. Which doesn’t happen if you never present evidence, which has been your repeated failing. I don’t think this is a difficult concept, and I can’t discern the reason you fail to understand it.

You need to know trigonometry. That’s explained at the link. The numbers are given and identified as wavelength (numerator) and iris diameter (denominator)

Axion has been suspended for repeated and egregious bad faith arguments and soapboxing.

! Moderator Note I don’t care why you post. I do care that you are repeatedly violating the rules, and don’t seem to comprehend the feedback you’ve been given. This is posted in philosophy. Was there some philosophy you wished to discuss?

You have this backwards.The burden of proof lies with you. Your “skepticism” doesn’t need to be debunked. Nobody is required to prove science isn’t a conspiracy. This BS. The standard model is known to be incomplete. It has not been discarded, and that you do not distinguish between these very different situations is a large problem.

As Phi implied, there are places you can discuss such unsupported claims. This is not one of them. You are “choked by the mainstream” because you aren’t discussing mainstream science.